How Patna Police's action in SSR case was 'justified'

In a massive relief to the family of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered for a court monitored CBI probe in the case while also saying that the action of the Patna Police was justified.

A single judge bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justice Hrishikesh Kumar held that since the father of the deceased actor is the legal heir of the properties and assets in question, the action of the Patna Police is 'justified'.

"Registration of FIR is mandated when information on cognisable offence is received by the police. Precedents suggest that at the stage of investigation, it cannot be said that the concerned police station does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case".

Tthe bench said in its order, "The allegation relating to criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money which were to be eventually accounted for in Patna (where the Complainant resides), could prima facie indicate the lawful jurisdiction of the Patna police,"

It further said that the Patna police committed no illegality in registering the complaint.

"Looking at the nature of the allegations in the complaint which also relate to misappropriation and breach of trust, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Bihar Police appears to be in order. At the stage of investigation, they were not required to transfer the FIR to Mumbai police," the Apex Court held.

The bench also said, "For the same reason, the Bihar government was competent to give consent for entrustment of investigation to the CBI and as such the ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be lawful"

Senior advocate Vikas Singh appearing for Sushant's father KK Singh, had argued that when misappropriation and criminal breach of trust is alleged in respect to the assets of the deceased actor and the concerned property relatable to the alleged offence, will have to be accounted eventually to the Complainant (as a Class I legal heir of the deceased), the action of the Patna Police is contended to be within jurisdiction, under Section 179 read with Section 181(4) of the CrPC which speaks of consequences ensuing at another place, as a result of the alleged crime.

However, the said arguments were opposed by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the Maharashtra government and senior advocate Shyam Diwan who represented Rhea Chakraborty.

The bench has also held that in the event a new case is registered in Mumbai on the same issue, in the fitness of things, it would

be appropriate if the latter case too gets investigated by the same agency (CBI), on the strength of this Court's order.

"Such enabling order will make it possible for the CBI to investigate the new case, avoiding the rigors of Section 6 of the DSPE Act, requiring consent from the State of Maharashtra," the court said.

Tags: Cinema, Showbiz, Immigration, Law, Rights